Did MeanKids.org Have a Right to Exist?

by Karoli on March 30, 2007 · 14 comments

I want to address a piece of an interesting comment today on my original post about Kathy Sierra. Roark says the following:

I understand that the behavior on meankids.org is reprehensible, that’s why I don’t go there or any of the other websites that promote an agenda that is morally contrary to my own: KKK sites, Kiddie Porn, FOX news, etc. But they have a right to exist.

So let’s talk about that for a second. And Roark, as much as I may agree with you about FOX news, I want to take them out of the discussion I want to have because while they are certainly not my flavor of news, I wouldn’t put them on the same level with the KKK or Kiddie Porn.

Here’s the question I have: WHY do those sites have a right to exist? What purpose do they serve other than to feed the dark, hateful, buried evil in people? Let’s start with the fact that the kiddie sites are illegal. That negates any right they have to exist. You are arguing for the existence of a place that is intended to be nothing more than a breeding ground for destructive activity.

MeanKids.org was created as a rebellious reaction to Tara Hunt’s use of the delete key on comments to her blog that, in her view, were inappropriate, attacking, and didn’t contribute to the conversation at hand. The actual conversation surrounded her musings on acting toward a higher purpose. The context was not religious; rather, it was a discussion of how to focus your efforts on the purpose for which they’re intended. How that turned into a huge controversy is still beyond me, but it did.

This is what MeanKids had as its purpose:

MeanKids was purposeful anarchy. I thought the people at MeanKids would create art and criticism, pointed and insulting satire, but not foster a climate of fear.

Here’s my question for Roark and others: Have you ever been in an anarchical environment that hasn’t fostered a climate of fear? Anarchy invites fear and intimidation as its primary currency. How could it have been otherwise?

Did meankids.org have the right to exist? Should it in the future? Maybe if it had set a higher purpose of addressing art and criticism as a set of ideas rather than people? Here’s an illustration: Robert Scoble has or had a doppleganger awhile back — I’m not sure if he still does. The blog posts that I read parodied Scoble but really took aim at the sort of self-absorbed geek attitude that gadgets and the internet are the be-all and the end-all. Whoever was writing that site at the time I looked at it was anonymous, genuinely funny, and not mean. I’m qualifying this because I only looked at it once and thought it was okay then, but it certainly could be different now. For me, what distinguished that blog and blogger from the MeanKids site was the clear focus on the message and not the person, using Robert Scoble’s high profile as the jumping point to remind geeks to get some perspective. I have no problem at all with that.

But creating a site as ‘purposeful anarchy’ that really was intended to be a place to post the personal attacks (and augment them) that Tara Hunt had deleted? To me, that site didn’t have a right to exist. What do you think?

P.S. To Roark: I would not say that Kathy Sierra had ‘celebrity status’. Writing a couple of tech books and being a blogger that people read and/or linked to does not make her a celebrity, which is not true of some others who have recently written about similar attacks aimed at them.

Technorati Tags: anarchy, blogs, blogging, free speech, stopcyberbullying, Tara Hunt, higher purpose, Robert Scoble

Tagged as: News, Technology, Web

Pingback: Flamingo House Happenings » I’m not angel, but I’m not mean
http://unlikelyinlove.blogspot.com/ Femtastic

I appreciate from where you come, and agree with you that I don’t see the value in a website specifically geared towards mocking and belittling individual people.

And I still feel that as long as someone’s speech is not illegal they have a right to speak it.

The KKK does many terrible things that ARE illegal and should be absolutely stopped. But if all they did was stand around shouting from street corners about the inferiority of other races I would fight for their right to do so. Because it’s that same right that allows me to stand on my street corner and shout that white supremicists are wrong and also ridiculous, and that people are equal. Two points of view, and you never know who I’d be offending. Just because the people I would offend are people you and I wouldn’t respect doesn’t mean that I should be allowed special priviledge.

The second that you start curtailing anyone’s free speech (even if they’re being hurtful, but still being legal) you’re shutting us all up.

But that’s just my big, old opinion.
http://lizditz.typepad.com Liz Ditz

Karoli, we are going to have to respectfully agree to disagree over some things.

I agree that child pr0n (assuming the child is under 18, and that a child over 18 has full mental capacity) does not have a right to exist, for the following reasons: people in that class, children and the mentally incapable, are unable to give full conscious consent to what is happening.

The other examples you give

1. Are not morally equivalent (KKK does not equal something like MeanKids)

2. Free speech means nothing if it does not defend speech I personally find repellant or abhorent.

3. Finally, you are using “anarchy” to mean, I think, “mob rule”. They aren’t the same things.
http://drumsnwhistles.com karoli

Liz –

So that it’s clear — I would not have placed MeanKids, Fox News, child exploitation sites and the KKK in the same sentence or even made a comparison between them. But that was what Roark gave me to work with, which is why those examples were what I used in my post.

We agree on the child exploitation and we actually agree to an extent on the KKK as well, provided that the KKK does not cross the line into inciting, speaking, threatening, or encouraging violence against the targets of their ire.

On the subject of anarchy, I can see where you think I took a leap. Anarchy in its purest form has is no place for violence, oppression or hatred. Ideally, it is simply a society which exists with pure self-policing on the part of the individuals who co-exist within that society or subset of that society.

The problem I have with the ideal is that it fails to take human nature into account, and this is the flaw that brought down the MeanKids concept as well as its successor. The creator failed to plan for the possibility that some of the members of its society would use their freedoms for destructive purposes. In pure anarchy, there can be no single authority over others. So what you had was a site established for the purpose of insult and criticism, among other things, where each member had absolute control over what they did with the assumption that they would use that control in a judicious fashion.

Frank Paynter used the term “purposeful anarchy”, which I interpreted as an ideal — the existence of a place, a community, which existed under an agreed-upon purpose, which had structure but not governance. I found an interesting discussion of anarchy in the context of Open Source here. (note that the original article I am quoting is no longer available. This is quoted text in another post)

Forget any associations you may have with the idea of creating anarchy in communities or societies by throwing bombs and other disruptive acts, since these are both factually incorrect, and have nothing to do with what Anarchy advocates. The correct association is of anarchy with “a state of nature”, the Garden of Eden, if you will.

I think this is an excellent description of how I understand anarchy to be in its ideal state.

It goes on to say:

Humans, being highly social animals with highly advanced systems for communication of symbolic knowledge, have the ability to impose rules of all sorts on this original state. In principle, there is nothing wrong with this, but history shows many examples where “the rules” become highly oppressive. In tribal societies, the social unit is a small group where social “norms” can operate effectively, and it can be argued that the “norms” are essential for the survival of the tribe, but human development did not stop there. With the development of agriculture, the stage was set for creating hierarchical structures, monetary systems and large scale warfare (i.e. beyond inter-tribal conflicts for territory).

This is the punch line and where I made my jump, because I believe that ideal anarchy cannot be achieved in the context of human nature and so violence, threats, fear and intimidation become the currency that is exchanged for ‘community structure’. It would seem that we’ve had several examples of that within the context of this week’s events as well.

Finally, I’m mindful of the fact that by saying I don’t believe MeanKids had a right to exist, I’m certainly stepping on the lines of free speech. I’m actually still struggling with that, which is why I framed my post as a question. Their site was clearly within the limits of free speech until the threats were posted and allowed to stand, and would have remained within those limits had the ‘crossed-over’ posts been removed along with whoever posted them (as well as the comments). But when they weren’t removed, even the originator believed the site had no right to exist, which is why he tore it down.
http://drumsnwhistles.com karoli

Femtastic,

As I said to Liz, I am cognizant that by even asking the question I’m challenging the free speech limits. Really, I’m hoping that by asking the question we might have this kind of discussion to arrive at what would be considered ‘the line’.
http://apublicdefender.com Gideon

Removing these websites won’t stop people from thinking this way or meeting to discuss their thoughts and feelings. Websites just bring them out into the “open” and make it more blatant.

I think the key is responsibility.
http://unlikelyinlove.blogspot.com/ Femtastic

Karoli:

Thanks for the reply, and I apologize if my response didn’t answer your question as directly as you’d hoped. Here’s the short answer, in my opinion: the line has been drawn by the courts and I think it’s at a pretty good place.
Roark

While the comment of the KKK, child pornography, and FOX news was half meant as a point of absurdity, they are related in the way they are villainized. The ideas of deep seated racism, pedophelia, and insane right-wing dogma are unfortunate pieces of our societal make up. People around the country are thinking these things as you read this. And that’s fine. In any large, free society you’re going to get people that form ideas that are (hopefully) on the fringe of societal norms, and it is not our job to force them to think otherwise. Contrast this with their manifestations: lynching, child exploitation, and fascist policies. These are the things we control through the agreed upon contract of law. If someone wants to put up a tasteless, disgusting blog about their attraction to children and describe in detail their fantasies. Fine. I’m not gonna read it. The line is crossed when they get actual children involved. Then they are impinging on the rights of others.

If some one wants to believe that I’m inferior because I’m not white, that’s their perogative. But tell me I can’t do a job because of it, and I will tear that building down brick by brick.

If Rupert Murdoch wants to have a news channel to promote his ideals, who am I to tell him what to do with this toys? But if he wants to squeeze out every other channel or buy them out to create a monopoly on information, then we need to protect our rights through legislation.

And FINALLY, if some jackasses want to smear someone through altered pictures that she herself put out in public, and speak ignorant thoughts that for the most part were incoherent babble that seemed filtered through the mind of a mentally handicapped twelve year old, LET THEM. If they break into your house, shoot them in the leg and call the cops.

And I agree with why the owner of meankids took down the site. It was his choice. Gideon said it best: the key is responsibility. For our own selves and our own actions.

And I disagree about your idea of ‘celebrity.’ If even only ten people, spread across the globe, are reading what you write, comment on your thoughts, and you have no idea who they are, that’s international notariety. That’s a minor celebrity.

My father told me once “If you don’t want someone to find you, don’t tell them where you are.”
Roark

Oh, as far as anarchy is concerned, the key is, supposedly, mutually agreed upon and beneficial contracts between individuals without penalty if mutually dissolved.

I agree with you on your assessment: no regard for actual human nature.

Personally, I think they’re larval republicans still holding onto unrealistic ideals.

Sweet kids.
Roy

meankids has a right to exist. non-question. Kathy Sierra did this whole thing for *publicity*. 100% certainty. she says “i might never blog again !” … well, I will cut off my own arm and roast it with some thyme and eat it if that is true. it is not true. she did it for publicity. these death threats were childish and stupid, nothing more. If I am out at the pub with some friends and some kids shout “wankers!” at us or anything like that, I don’t run to the police station and cry that someone is trying to kill me, I ignore it. This is the real world Kathy. wake up. This whole thing is 100% publicity oriented. Kathy might have been a tiny bit hury by these childish insults, but I bet the Iraqi children in small viallges who watched their parents blinded and having limbs blown off by american bombs with no apology and no regard for the fact that their tiny village was no military target have a LOT more reason that Kathy to be hurt and upset (in fact VERY VERY angry at America for killing their peace-loving family would be an appropriate reaction). i.e. get some perspective Kathy and stop trawling the waters for sympathy and publicity … boring.
Roy

meankids has a right to exist. non-question. Kathy Sierra did this whole thing for *publicity*. 100% certainty. she says “i might never blog again !” … well, I will cut off my own arm and roast it with some thyme and eat it if that is true. it is not true. she did it for publicity. these death threats were childish and stupid, nothing more. If I am out at the pub with some friends and some kids shout “wankers!” at us or anything like that, I don’t run to the police station and cry that someone is trying to kill me, I ignore it. This is the real world Kathy. wake up. This whole thing is 100% publicity oriented. Kathy might have been a tiny bit hury by these childish insults, but I bet the Iraqi children in small viallges who watched their parents blinded and having limbs blown off by american bombs with no apology and no regard for the fact that their tiny village was no military target have a LOT more reason that Kathy to be hurt and upset (in fact VERY VERY angry at America for killing their peace-loving family would be an appropriate reaction). i.e. get some perspective Kathy and stop trawling the waters for sympathy and publicity …
Anonymous

Yes. meankids has a right to exist. Bloggers and board administrators who typically greet people with a delete just for what they hear in a post don’t belong on the web. These bloggers are inviting the public to say what the blogger wants them to say. The public simply isn’t buying it. Meankids demonstrated that beautifully. More meankids.
bob

Yes. meankids has a right to exist. Bloggers and board administrators who typically greet people with a delete just for what they hear in a post don’t belong on the web. These bloggers are inviting the public to say what the blogger wants them to say. The public simply isn’t buying it. Meankids demonstrated that beautifully. More meankids.
bob

sorry double post